Attorneys representing Matt Hume and Group One Holdings PTE LTD., the holding company for OneFC has filed a response to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel the Deposition of Matt Hume. Plaintiffs have also filed its response to Hume’s Motion to Quash or Modify its Subpoena to Hume, a OneFC executive.

Hume is an officer in the Asian-based MMA promotion, OneFC.

Hume’s attorneys argue that Plaintiffs in the Antitrust lawsuit are trying to pull an end around into improperly attempting to obtain OneFC’s “confidential and proprietary business information.” They argue that Group One is a Singaporean company that is not subject to jurisdiction in the United States. Hume’s attorney assert that it the Plaintiffs seek to obtain documents from the company, it “must follow the procedures adopted by the Hague Convention.” Moreover, they claim that Hume does not have access to the financial information sought by Plaintiffs. This process does not have a specific timeframe as to when letters of request must receive a response but it is understood (within the context of European regulation) that it is 90 days. Yet, there does not seem to be a hard and fast rule. The average time according to one procedure manual is that it is 6 months to a year for a response which creates problems with US discovery schedules.

Hume argues that Mr. Hume’s deposition, if taken, cannot be used to obtain Group One’s confidential information. The concern is that a “fishing expedition” would take place in which the Plaintiffs would be able to ask Hume, under oath, specific financial, business and confidential information about OneFC without using the proper channels to obtain the information. Hume’s attorneys conceded that if a deposition were to take place, the Court should prohibit inquiry into Group One’s competitively-sensitive business information. It also opposed any fees needed to be paid by Hume or OneFC as a result of this motion. Plaintiffs claimed in excess of $21,000 for having to file the motion to compel.

Plaintiffs oppose Matt Hume and One FC’s Motion to Quash or Modify the Subpoena. Plaintiffs cite a declaration Hume submitted on behalf of Zuffa in the Antitrust Lawsuit which states “Group One Holdings compete with Zuffa to sign professional MMA fighters” and “One Championship is not a minor league or feeder league for the UFC.” Based on the fact that Hume’s title at OneFC is that of “Vice President,” Plaintiffs suggest he should have access to business documents – a statement Hume’s attorneys deny.

Despite the Nevada Court’s stating that OneFC should submit to the subpoena, Hume’s attorneys claim that it is misrepresenting the Court’s statements. Notably, a minute order stated that Plaintiffs could issue a subpoena to OneFC but Hume’s attorney stated that it would not accept service citing that it must abide by The Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad.

In addition, Hume’s attorneys are opposing a motion to transfer this issue to the District Court of Nevada. You might recall that the District Court of Los Angeles transferred a discovery dispute to Nevada involving Bellator.

Payout Perspective:

The dispute is not a sexy substantive issue but an important procedurally issue if Plaintiffs believe that OneFC’s information is helpful for their case. Despite the Nevada Court granting the right for Plaintiffs to issue a subpoena, it does not give specifics in its order. As attorneys for Hume and OneFC, they saw the issue with the order and the fact that to ascertain the information from its foreign client, it must go through a process and not through Hume. The motion to transfer the case to Nevada makes sense for Plaintiffs but Hume’s attorneys will try to keep it in Washington state where they might receive a more favorable ruling. MMA Payout will keep you posted.